RE: SteemWorld Support / 2019-11-25
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I know you are a serious Steem app developer, which is something I generally support. I therefore believe that you deserve an explanation why I am downvoting this and why I will likely continue to downvote these posts (though I don't automate voting currently, so it will generally depend on whether I happen to see one when I have downvote power available)
- I believe SPS is the primary intended and appropriate vehicle for ongoing project funding post HF21. If SPS voters do not decide to fund your project, to me it indicates a strong signal that your project in its present form is not deemed worthy of funding by the consensus of Steem stakeholders. The ability to, without broad consensus approval, nevertheless extract an income stream of rewards by posts and self-upvotes, potentially bought votes, friend votes, etc. is more of an exploit than a benefit, in my view, and makes this an appropriate use of downvotes.
- When I downvoted, the post had a pending payout of about $50, or $25 after curation. Your web site is no doubt useful to some in the community and from what I have seen is definitely quality work, but funding it from rewards contributes only, at best, in a very limited and indirect way to Steem's urgent priorities of growth, onboarding, maintaining and growing the value of the Steem token, etc. In Steem's current precarious financial state, $750/month is a high cost for the platform/community budget to subsidize one of several dashboard/explorer type web sites. The stated plan to make such posts daily is excessive, at least at this reward level. Occasional developer posts which report on noteworthy releases or milestones, as others have done, is less problematic than the stated plan here of routine daily posts.
- I wish you the best and I hope you can find a sustainable business model. Perhaps that could include a small user fee as you suggest, on-site advertisements, etc., or even possibly (hopefully temporarily) disabling some of the most resource-intensive features so the hosting cost can be reduced during this challenging period.
It is truly unfortunate that Steem is in the state that it is, in terms of price and therefore available resources (and further, at constant imminent risk of additional highly catastrophic price declines), but that only makes it even more critical that every single payout, particularly larger ones, be highly scrutinized to ensure they are extremely beneficial uses of very limited resources.
I agree with this. As much as we want to see Steemworld continue operating, seeing Steem stumble in price will cost a lot to support this. $50 ($25 after curation) will earn around 50+ steem per post, which means more than 1500 Steems to be sold per month to cover the costs. That'll be okay if the funding comes from SPS, which unfortunately is not deemed worthy of funding by the consensus of Steem stakeholders, or there are more projects worthy of funding than this.
I suggest pay-to-use feature, in which @arcange do in his Steem SQL. It has been successful and doesn't require funding anymore. I think the pay-to-use feature will be beneficial to all, the only ones who use will pay not the expense of the community or the reward pool.
Good points but your numbers are off a bit. It is actually about 6000 STEEM per month.
Oh I meant the $25 after curation he receives. Should be around 25+ Steem and 25+ SP in rewards. So I'm estimating that he will receive around 50+ Steem per post. Which will be around 1500 per month.?
Each STEEM is worth about $0.12 currently so $25 turns into about 208 STEEM.
My $5 post got around 6 Steem + 6 SP in author rewards. :O Does the payout follow market price correctly?
Steemnow in fact is giving $0.20 per Steem price. I believe it's because of broken SBD peg and debt ratio.
I can't explain that. Maybe it got downvoted near the end?
That is possible. I don't recall if steemit.com made that adjustment to the display or not. At $0.20, a $25 payout would be 125 STEEM.
Thanks for your explanation! I see it as a very exemplary action that you take the time to explain your intentions.
That's okay for me. I don't want to become rich with these posts and I have no control over the incoming votes. Fact is that the community likes to support me and instead of earning nothing from one day to the other, because of a few big players controlling the SPS, I now earn something for my work again. I never intended to sell as much as comes in and I will only sell what is needed to keep me running. The rest will be powered up.
The majority on Steem is here to earn something and I think it's a dangerous new way of thinking to prevent as many people as possible from earning STEEM with the goal to prevent as many as possible from selling. If people don't earn enough (in $ terms), they will start powering down their collected shares instead. We can't fight against the peoples love for Steem. I understand that people like you invested their life into this and it must hurt to wake up day after day and see the millions shrinking more and more over such a long period of time, but maybe we are too much in our heads and too much focused on failing instead of winning.
What's the point of onboarding new people, if they are not allowed to sell their earnings? We are fighting against inflation, which is built into Steem to reward people and at the same time to increase their shares. If people don't earn enough, they can't keep their shares. Securing a huge part of the pool only for investors who don't intend to sell is a way more dangerous solution in my opinion, because it has the potential to hurt Steem's reputation massively.
As I stated a few weeks ago, I think we need a real (maybe inbuilt) burn mechanism. For example, the SPS Fund could partially be used for this. We now have over 158K SBD in there. One may think that it's good to have those funds available for future developments, but I think we need them now the most. To be honest, If I could, I would burn at least 50% of the fund today to support the price of STEEM.
Another temporary solution could be to create (real) @burnpost's, in which the option
allow_curation_rewardsis set tofalse. Did you consider also burning the curation part? I then would vote them regularly and encourage others to do so.I plan to add Paypal for direct donations in the coming days. This would be one way to circumvent selling my rewards. I'm not sure, if ads would work in my case. Their scripts would need to run outside the SteemWorld DOM, then it would be a possible solution. I will investigate further possibilities.
I've never been in favor of that, in fact I'm not even in favor of entire power up/illiquid Steem concept for the most part. I do recognize some value in the security aspect, but my view is that people who own stake should be allowed to sell it and restrictions just discourage people from holding it.
However, I do feel that we need to mindful of balance between the amount that is paid out and the magnitude of the Steem-growing benefits that are being achieved. For example, onboarding itself is a benefit, to the extent that the users are active, retained, etc., but it also doesn't have unlimited value per user, and no platform pays an unlimited cost to recruit new users (or it quickly goes out of business). The numbers have to make sense.
The DAO fund isn't circulating so it probably doesn't affect the price much. There is a small effect due to overhang (the possibility that it could be paid out and then sold in the future), but with only 160K SBD in there now this is really small.
If the amount sitting in the DAO becomes large then I would also support burning some of it to reduce the overhang effect.
Maybe we can experiment with that. My feeling up to this point has been that voting should be neutral in terms of the opportunity for curation rewards and the amount allocated to each payout be determined by these unbiased voter preferences (in fact I question the merits of the
allow_curation_rewardsoption existing at all). In addition there is the in-built mechanism which reduces curation rewards on fast votes (and burnpost definitely gets a good chunk before five minutes). But it is in fact true that some voters might be more likely to vote with curation rewards disabled.I agree. For me it's the same as acquiring a famous celebrity to join Steem. Then this celebrity gets massive support from the community.
But this famous celebrity isn't recruiting members and cashing out his earnings. I don't know if I make sense.
Makes perfect sense.
Downvotes are a destructive way of life, weather or not you like the way other people acting.
To critisize @steemchiller for the way of funding its work to the benefit of the community is not indicated with sight on the devasting mistakes of steem HF20 and HF21
The value of steem is down, because steemit has some kind of socialism character.
Abolish inflation of steem and abolish downvote destruction of the community. Abolish the preference of rewards of the whales and witness and market will propably turn again.
The price of steem is turning to the south, because there are no equal rights and authors and users are leaving the plattform, because content and smal accounts of users are the victims of devatsing HF21 decesions.
Proof your perception in front of downvotes, try to love the engagement of people like @steemchiller who could propably earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in den IT industry...